I did have to laugh where it said CA is underrepresented in POTUS elections. That could be the real fissure point. CA thinks they are not represented enough, most of the rest of the USA thinks they have too much influence. No way to bridge that gap.

That's true. With every state getting two free electoral votes, the ratio of electoral votes to population is lowest in California. I'm not sure if this also part of their point but with California leaning so heavily blue, they probably feel left out in terms of candidate attention.

That's true. With every state getting two free electoral votes, the ratio of electoral votes to population is lowest in California. I'm not sure if this also part of their point but with California leaning so heavily blue, they probably feel left out in terms of candidate attention.

They get no attention because they are going to vote one way anyhow. Of course many states are the same boat, just the huge population there emphasizes it.

I do see this as the same as Scotland now and Lithuania a generation ago. I remember the later in 1989, they declare independence and the USSR could not stop it short of making the place an occupied zone under martial law. Some laughed, but just years later all the Baltics were given independence. People dismiss Calexit at their own peril.

The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it

That's true. With every state getting two free electoral votes, the ratio of electoral votes to population is lowest in California.

States with a single congressional district in some sense get three votes per vote cast.District of Columbia At-largeAlaska At-largeMontana At-largeWyoming At-largeSouth Dakota At-largeNorth Dakota At-largeVermont At-largeDelaware At-large

Quote: Wizard

I'm not sure if this also part of their point but with California leaning so heavily blue, they probably feel left out in terms of candidate attention.

President Trump won 25 counties in California. There is nothing in the constitution that says a state should vote "winner take all". California will get a lot more attention.

States with a single congressional district in some sense get three votes per vote cast.District of Columbia At-largeAlaska At-largeMontana At-largeWyoming At-largeSouth Dakota At-largeNorth Dakota At-largeVermont At-largeDelaware At-large

President Trump won 25 counties in California. There is nothing in the constitution that says a state should vote "winner take all". California will get a lot more attention.

I think many Californians don't want to live in a countryWhere their votes count 1/3 as much as those in other statesWhere companies can freely dump waste into riversWhere there are no environmental regulationsWhere there are no banking regulationsWhere there is no public educationWhere workers are routinely abused and underpaid and have no recourseWhere racial, religious, and gender discrimination are not only accepted but actually codified into lawWhere coal instead of computers is the primary technologyWhere an incompetent narcissist is the leaderWhere only the rich can afford health care and no one else gets it

This is the country the Republicans want. This is the country they are trying to create. Why should California go along as the Republicans do everything they can to solidify absolute power?

They get no attention because they are going to vote one way anyhow. Of course many states are the same boat, just the huge population there emphasizes it.

I do see this as the same as Scotland now and Lithuania a generation ago. I remember the later in 1989, they declare independence and the USSR could not stop it short of making the place an occupied zone under martial law. Some laughed, but just years later all the Baltics were given independence. People dismiss Calexit at their own peril.

Those aren't great parallels, though, because both Scotland and Lithuania were conquered and absorbed, whereas California was an independent nation that joined the US voluntarily. I see the most apt comparison as Quebec. Quebecoise see themselves as socially, culturally, and of course, linguistically distinct from the rest of Canada and have never been all that thrilled with being in the Canadian federation. At least two secession referenda have failed narrowly. Of course, Canadian provinces have more autonomy than US states have.

That's why the first Calexit move will be a petition to amend the CA constitution so as to validate the state's right to secede from the Union. Right now, it doesn't say that its participation in the Union is voluntary and can be rescinded at any time, which is what the Calexit advocates want.

What I'd really like to see is the nation of Pacifica. WA, OR, CA, HI, and Clark and Washoe counties from Nevada. It would be a self-sufficient economic powerhouse, and no longer being crippled by having to help pay for the foibles of the flyover states, would very quickly become the richest nation (per capita) on earth, with a progressive society and advanced technology.

(I left out Alaska because Moose Shooter Lady wouldn't allow the state to join.)

What I'd really like to see is the nation of Pacifica. WA, OR, CA, HI, and Clark and Washoe counties from Nevada. It would be a self-sufficient economic powerhouse, and no longer being crippled by having to help pay for the foibles of the flyover states, would very quickly become the richest nation (per capita) on earth, with a progressive society and advanced technology.

I support the Cascadia independence movement. Largely because I have an interest in ridiculous causes that have no chance at success.

I support the Cascadia independence movement. Largely because I have an interest in ridiculous causes that have no chance at success.

I'm proud to say I've climbed four of the Cascade volcanoes.

Doesn't Cascadia include British Columbia and NOT California? Or maybe some iterations of it include the State of Jefferson. BC has quite a history of semi-independence. In fact, they said they weren't even going to join Canada back in 1867 unless the federal government bankrolled the Trans-Canadian railroad.

I've climbed Thielsen, South Sister, Hood, and Lassen. The last one was easy; the other three, not so much.

In fact, doesn't Maine divide them according to the vote within Maine, or maybe by regions with Maine?

Maine and Nebraska give one vote for each congressional district, and two votes for the majority winner of the state. This allocation method is heavily favored by many progressives as a practical compromise to the simple popular vote.

As a general rule in the last few decades, Democrats win certain congressional districts (like those in the Bronx) by an overhwhelmingly high percentage points. Given the voting pattern in 2012 Mitt Romney would have beaten Barack Obama in electoral college votes using this alternative allocation method.

Obama, ‘won’ 209 districts while Governor Romney, ‘won’ 226 giving Romney a lead of 15 electoral college votes.Obama, 'won' 2 states + DC more than Governor Romney which would have given him 6 more electoral college votes, which was not enough to beat the 15 extra from the congressional districts.

However, voting patterns may have been different if campaigning was aimed at a different allocation method.